Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Zen Badger]

Here's the thing. God is in humanity's collective consciousness as the creator of life. Not aliens from outer space, not Harry Potter, and not the tooth fairy.

So what? Gods plural is what you should be saying, as polythesistic gods preceed your god. Which leads to the point that your religion is not monothesist. Since you have a creator god, yahweh/allah and a host of lesser deities(angels,demons etc) So there is no difference between your religion and say hinduism.

Therefore, all experiments conducted in the area of life's origin have an underlying design to either prove or disprove God's existence.

Real scientists have no interest in disproving the non-existence of god, that goes without saying.
Only the creationist halfwits are trying to desperately prove his existence.

So whenever results fail to explain something scientifically, then it is not illogical to conclude that such results point towards the existence of God.

Yes it is.

[Caecilian]

Here's the thing. God is in humanity's collective consciousness as the creator of life. Not aliens from outer space, not Harry Potter, and not the tooth fairy. Therefore, all experiments conducted in the area of life's origin have an underlying design to either prove or disprove God's existence. So whenever results fail to explain something scientifically, then it is not illogical to conclude that such results point towards the existence of God.

So, god is in our collective consciousness is he? Wtf is that supposed to mean?

As Zen Badger says, scientists aren't interested in proving or disproving god. Saying otherwise is (yet again) a display of your appalling ignorance of science. What scientists are trying to do is to produce a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life- and they're making real progress. They're also aiming to synthesize life (an overlapping objective), and again genuine progress is being made.

[SleepingDemon]

No one has to disprove god. There is no evidence for god, or the lochness monster, or chupacabra, or unicorns. No one has to disprove any of those things. It's the people who say they came face to face with bigfoot that have to prove it. It is upon the people who say that spacegod with superpowers or the super best friends created everything and are perfect and love us and send nonbelievers and jews to hell to prove it. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence in regards to supernatural claims. You can't say you met a leprechaun without having a picture, video on youtube, and a lucky charm bitemark on your neck. I can say that vampires exist all day long, but unless I have an undead neck biting zombie then my claim means nothing.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There seem to be as many views on what christ was/did as christians.

Not just Christian, pretty much applies to any religion.

Ten thousand monks,ten thousand religions (Buddhist saying)

[tavarish]

What if there was a secluded society of great scientists that have never heard of gods or religion? If they were working at finding answers to the unknown... how could they ever reach the conclusion that a god created everything? If they've never observed any evidence of this god, how would they generate a concept of what a god is that conforms to their logic and scientific findings?

Isn't attributing an unknown to a god/ghost contradictory? Like saying I don't know... so I know this must've happened due to a god/ghost.

Here's the thing. God is in humanity's collective consciousness as the creator of life. Not aliens from outer space, not Harry Potter, and not the tooth fairy. Therefore, all experiments conducted in the area of life's origin have an underlying design to either prove or disprove God's existence. So whenever results fail to explain something scientifically, then it is not illogical to conclude that such results point towards the existence of God.

1. Stating something doesn't make it automatically true. Assertions by themselves aren't evidence of anything.
2. Origins of life are just that - life origins. They don't aim to prove or disprove something which is by definition untestable in conventional methodological naturalism.
3. Making a conclusion when the facts aren't in yet is intellectually dishonest. If something can be falsified and hasn't been, such as abiogenesis, then it is still viable. However, if something can't be falsified in any aspect, such as the illogical properties that some people apply to a higher power, then it has no merit as a scientific hypothesis.

You've been trying to spin this 100 different ways since the beginning of the thread and your idea hasn't taken off. Lack of evidence of a falsifiable theory isn't evidence that God exists, especially not your personal interpretation of what you think your particular religious doctrine describes.

[downbeatplumb]

You can't say you met a leprechaun without having a picture, video on youtube, and a lucky charm bitemark on your neck.

[/quote]

looks like you need one of these.

http://familycrafts.about.com/cs/leprech...501a_2.htm

[AngelThMan]

So, god is in our collective consciousness is he? [What] is that supposed to mean?

It's self explanatory, isn't it? Maybe you're not as smart as you think.

As Zen Badger says, scientists aren't interested in proving or disproving god. Saying otherwise is (yet again) a display of your appalling ignorance of science.

I did make the distinction in my post that there's an "underlying" objective to prove or disprove God. There's a difference between an 'underlying' objective and a main objective. Even 'real' scientists would love to make a finding and throw it at the world with a declaration (whether directly or implicitly) to the effect of "Hey look, I finally proved once and for all that life did not come from a God."

What scientists are trying to do is to produce a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life- and they're making real progress.

There's no real progress in the area of life's origin. Scientists have synthesized a single-cell genome, but that is completely different.

They're also aiming to synthesize life (an overlapping objective), and again genuine progress is being made.

Attempting to create artificial life and conducting experiments to determine the origin of life are two entirely different things. That's like saying that attempting to build a car from scratch in your garage is making progress in discovering who invented cars. Maybe it's you who's clueless.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

So, god is in our collective consciousness is he? [What] is that supposed to mean?

Reminds me of 'Avatar' (2009 film) where the whole biology of planet Pandora was like a collective consciousness that was worshiped by the Na'vi warriors as theists worship their deities. I'm just trying to show how saying your deity is a collective consciousness is ambiguous hence not self-evident.

---

They're also aiming to synthesize life (an overlapping objective), and again genuine progress is being made.

Attempting to create artificial life and conducting experiments to determine the origin of life are two entirely different things. That's like saying that attempting to build a car from scratch in your garage is making progress in discovering who invented cars. Maybe it's you who's clueless.

If we can create life entirely from simple molecules that are common in nature, we can work backwards to find out how life can form according to natural events. I guess the 'who' in this process would be 'nature'.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2010...ergysource
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...101957.htm

[tavarish]

So, god is in our collective consciousness is he? [What] is that supposed to mean?

Reminds me of 'Avatar' (2009 film) where the whole biology of planet Pandora was like a collective consciousness that was worshiped by the Na'vi warriors as theists worship their deities. I'm just trying to show how saying your deity is a collective consciousness is ambiguous hence not self-evident.

There's actually a big distinction between Pandora and Earth, if taken into context.

Their connectivity to their deity was scientifically demonstrable. The deity produced reliable results.

In real life...not so much.

[Welsh cake]

Here's the thing. God is in humanity's collective consciousness as the creator of life.

Which one? And no, we're not talking about other creatures or examples of myth, there is more than one god-concept.

Therefore, all experiments conducted in the area of life's origin have an underlying design to either prove or disprove God's existence.

All experiments conducted in the area of life's origin have no ulterior motive regarding deities, contrary to your half-baked half-arsed conspiracy theories.

So whenever results fail to explain something scientifically, then it is not illogical to conclude that such results point towards the existence of God.

Yes it is, because it's just one pathetic argument from ignorance.

I did make the distinction in my post that there's an "underlying" objective to prove or disprove God. There's a difference between an 'underlying' objective and a main objective.

An ulterior motive IS THE SAME THING as an underlying objective.

There's no real progress in the area of life's origin. Scientists have synthesized a single-cell genome, but that is completely different.

There IS progress being made in the area of life's origin. That experiment was but one milestone.

Unlike you, scientists are out there accomplishing, achieving and discovering, the process won't stop just so you can have a security blanket to go to at night.